Robert Lamont Burgess v. Randy Irwin and Beaver County District Attorney

Burgess · United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania · June 8, 2026 · No. 23-1113

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania overruled Robert Lamont Burgess's objections to a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation and denied his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. The court upheld the state courts' rejection of his ineffective-assistance claims concerning sufficiency-of-the-evidence arguments and the failure to call a prospective witness, adopted the Report and Recommendation, and denied a certificate of appealability.

Court
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Decision date
June 8, 2026
Docket number
23-1113
Disposition
dismissed

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the state court's rejection of Burgess's ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel's failure to raise a sufficiency-of-the-evidence issue on direct appeal was contrary to or an unreasonable application of Strickland or based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.
  2. Whether the state court's rejection of Burgess's ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel's failure to call Lamont Street as a witness was contrary to or an unreasonable application of Strickland or based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.
  3. Whether Burgess was entitled to a certificate of appealability.

Holdings

  1. The state court's rejection of Burgess's ineffective-assistance claim was not contrary to, and did not involve an unreasonable application of, Strickland, nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. The district court therefore overruled the objection and denied habeas relief on the claim.
  2. The state court's rejection of Burgess's ineffective-assistance claim was not contrary to, and did not involve an unreasonable application of, Strickland, nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.
  3. A certificate of appealability was denied because reasonable jurists would not disagree with the analysis supporting denial of the petition.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…